Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

EQ:N, the most Soul Crushing MMO to be released in the past 10 years!

1235

Comments

  • itchmonitchmon west islip, NYPosts: 1,714Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by baphamet

     

    definitely agree with most of this, had they not called this game everquest, i think there would be a lot less frustration.

    people expect an everquest game to at least resemble an everquest game to some extent. this game resembles other mmo's more than it does EQ, that's the problem.

    its obvious they are making a completely different type of mmo both in mechanics and style, which is great, but it should have never been called everquest.

    clearly they only named it that to get more people to play due to the popularity of the already established IP, that's it.

    but other than that this is just another MMO, its not everquest.

    The two Everquest games really don't resemble one another.  EQ1 and 2 look nothing alike.  I've played the two of them for something like a combined 5 years and i've never thought one felt like everquest and the other didnt.

     

    they both feel like everquest.  all it takes are small bits of familiarity to bring that continuity to a new game.  the opening theme to eq2 reminds me of EQ to the point that it made me tear up the first time i heard it.  (ditto the final fantasy opening theme with the famous FF chimes).  I don't get nostalgic thinking about a game's controls, nor the cartooniness of its graphics (earthbound, ever play it?).  but i DID get nostalgic watching the EQN flyover video and seeing druid spires.  THAT made the game feel like EQ.

    RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.

    Currently Playing EVE, DFUW

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

    Dwight D Eisenhower

    My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.

    Henry Rollins

  • MarkusanMarkusan UmePosts: 92Member

    Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.

    Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Markusan

    Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.

    Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.

    TY Mark for you expert opinion on game marketing..  Can we quote you to saying "EQN will bring in millions of players"..  I just want to be sure we don't misquote you.. 

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,734Member Uncommon
    Like a few have said already in the thread, this should have never have had anything to do with EQ.....Give it its own IP and create a whole new game if you like, but don't use the EQ name for the sake of drawing in players, especially when this game appears to have nothing to do with the original EQ other than a few names.....Also the hype for this game is too much...There is no way SOE is going to deliver what people here think they will.....In the end, they probably come up with a destructable GW2 clone and many will be disappointed.....The reason why many here want a EQ1 remade is that we don't have one..... Vanguard failed miserably at it and EQ2 was more of a WoW clone than EQ clone.
  • MarkusanMarkusan UmePosts: 92Member
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Markusan

    Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.

    Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.

    TY Mark for you expert opinion on game marketing..  Can we quote you to saying "EQN will bring in millions of players"..  I just want to be sure we don't misquote you.. 

    None of their previous games hold those numbers. That is why they want to try something different. And different means getting rid of the MUD gameplay. And FYI, Cartoonish graphics sell. Maybe not to the MMORPG.com community, but look at Disney, WoW, etc. A vast majority will not cry because of cartoonish graphics.

  • ray12kray12k riverside, CAPosts: 447Member
    If you dont like the game dont play......personally no pvp is a game killer. As for eqnext. They should take some pointers from minecraft....
  • TyranusPrimeTyranusPrime Sea of JapanPosts: 101Member Uncommon

    OP, considering that all we have is developer chatter and some early video footage, we don't really have anything to base that much off of.. much less to form any serious opinion.. Once it's playable, then you can say it is "soul-crushing" or that you don't like it.. Heck, right now everything is subject to change really..

     

    Honestly, "soul-crushing" isn't even remotely useable in this case.. Have some of your favorite games dumbed-down or actually cancelled, then tell me about soul-crushing..

     

    Just my 2 cents.. (Not refundable in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, or Denial)

    You have your fear, which might become reality; and you have Godzilla, which IS reality. - Ogata

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,053Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    I'm with the OP.

    Very excited to see so much of what is planned for Everquest next, but not excited for Everquest Next.  Its not my game, its just another game for the masses.  Say what they will, but what they are crafting is not an immersive, challenging, virtual world akin to MMOs of old, its just another shallow game thats embracing blizzard's philosophy of compromising integrity to attract as many casual players as possible.

    I'd like to say I hope its successful so that SOE would take their technology and make a real EQ successor, but i know success would only mean they'd neglect everything else.  So I hope they fail and learn that you can innovate and make more money with niche games like Eve, all without trying to reinvent the wheel.

    A modern EQ with voxels could have pulled in a few million subs easy.

    Shame.

     

    About half of this is your guess and not fact as you're stating it.  One thing that's true is this is not like MMOs of old and that's a good thing IMO.  Not that EQ or it's general principals aren't a good thing, they are a great thing.  One aspect that some either don't want to consider or haven't thought of is that EQN may be a whole lot like EQ.  It may even extend EQ's principals depending on what EQ meant to them.

     

    People see what they want to see.

    One is able to easily surmise the path of a game based on its design decisions.  I'm sorry you can't.

    Its plain to see that EQ Next has some revolutionary stuff to bring to the genre.  Thats indisputable.  Unfortunately, its also plain to see that they originally intended to take these features and make a new Everquest game akin to its predecessors that they thought would be available to the public as early as this year (2013).  This can be concluded from articles and interviews from the last 1-2 years.  

    Then somewhere along their development process, they decided what they already constructed was so revolutionary, so enticing, they needed to keep expanding on their ideas and completely reinvent the genre making it even more appealing to the casual player, more accessible to everyone in general, rather than just improving upon what they know works.  This can be surmised from their approach to every single feature they listed regarding classes, grouping and combat revealed thus far.

    Hardly conjecture, but I guess from the perspective of someone who hasn't read every article and watched every interview/panel/discussion/stream, you might not understand.


  • ego13ego13 Reno, NVPosts: 267Member
    Originally posted by BearKnight

    I've never seen so many people, myself included, conflicted over a release in quite some time. It isn't the Hype that is the issue either, and that is highly surprising. 

     

    The issue, is that Smed is rolling some of the best aspects of an MMO in with some of the most horrible aspects for an MMO. Together, they form the most frustrating announcements that have been made in the past 10years. Even more frustrating than seeing the first iteration of what we were going to have thrown at us from gamesworkshop in the form of a WoW-Warahmmer 40k (google to see what i'm talking about).

     

     

    So what's so amazing?

    -Sandbox Core Gameplay

    -Destructable Voxel based environemtn tied in with 3D models to handle animations (since voxels suck for animation)

    -Multi-Class mentality

    -Crafting that is trying to copy SWG's amazing system

    -Mentality behind "An MMO isn't just made for one person", something Sandbox's actually encompass.

    -Smed wants to make an EvE-style based fantasy Sandbox title, woo.

    -Exploration being the emphasis over linear achievement. 

     

    So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??

    -Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0

    *More like graphics that will age well, you obviously know jack about technology.  Show me a SINGLE realistic game that's aged well over time.  You can't, because they don't.

    -Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox

    -GW2's absolutely pathetic skill system, yaaay 8 abilities!

    -GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.

    -GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs

    * There has been no proof that anything has been dumbed down, and your points all seem to point at how limited your experience and ability was in GW2.  While you could spam (with a few classes), you obviously never played anything other than guardian, warrior, or ranger since playing as most other classes spamming just means you died.  Although you probably just thought that was due to bad luck and not timing...got it.

    * 8 Abilities is plenty, and means you have to pick and choose wisely to make the build you want.  This is a simple non-issue and really should only lead to deeper gameplay where meaningful choices have to be made.  Yes it could mean it's dumbed down but, again, there's been nothing showing that.  Yes you've seen a TECH DEMO of combat, again you show your knowledge of gaming and technology if you don't realize that it was only there to show you some abilities, not to show you how the finished combat/game will be.

    * As for weapon tie-ins....well, having to make meaningful choices on the abilities you use and the weapons you use makes perfect sense.  having attacks be based on weapons makes perfect sense.  Show me how you'll do a Ground Pound with a sword and make an indent...right you can't, good point.

    -Horizontal progression primarily based on gear (WoW raiding gear-stepping, but without levels?)

    -The same engine that runs Planetside 2

    -Developers that think making the graphics look BETTER, or correcting their mistakes, is a crime (ie: Banning for SweetFX)

     

     

     

    Misc:

    -PvP was mentioned, and then thrown under the bus to not be spoken about until Beta?

    -How does the world handle "Troll" guilds destroying the world? 

    -What's the regeneration timer on destroyed world pieces?

    -What's the limit to how much/deep you can destroy before the game physically stops you from doing any more?

    -How does the Engine handle 100 players in the same area? Does it dynamically-instance players from each other like PS2? (this turned PS2 into a mess btw)

     

     

     

     

     

    At the end of the day, the game is unplayable with their current WoW 2.0 Cartoon art-style, but is one of the more future-oriented core mechanics games we've seen since SWG/DAOC. Truly a frustrating event :(!!! 

    My comments in red....

    Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.

    image

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Markusan
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Markusan

    Stop requesting a remake of EQ1. Will not happen, because such a game would never bring in millions of players. They wanted to make something different to bring in a larger player base and do something that does not necessarliy take away from their EQ1 player base. Why make several games that are similar? The games would compete with each other.

    Also regarding the graphics, they stated that they want people to see emotes from a distance. In most realist looking games you have to zoom in on a characters face to see what expressions they are doing. With a more cartoonish look, characters can have enlarged eyes, etc that enable emotes to be seen from a distance.

    TY Mark for you expert opinion on game marketing..  Can we quote you to saying "EQN will bring in millions of players"..  I just want to be sure we don't misquote you.. 

    None of their previous games hold those numbers. That is why they want to try something different. And different means getting rid of the MUD gameplay. And FYI, Cartoonish graphics sell. Maybe not to the MMORPG.com community, but look at Disney, WoW, etc. A vast majority will not cry because of cartoonish graphics.

    Not sure why you said or tried to argue about cartoon graphics.. I never said I disliked them.. I actually prefer unrealistic art styles..   But I do have you noted as "EQN = next WoW giant"..   Good luck with that..

  • MoulsMouls ububuaPosts: 90Member

    SoE always have been a company looking to monetize their products that's because all of their games are F2P

    It was predictable that they would follow a few tendencies looking for more profit.

    Are they evil?,is Smed the devil itself? i don't know.

    A enterprise is a organization that aims to provide service to customers for profit.

  • elyssariaelyssaria LinghemPosts: 39Member

    So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??

    -Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0

    *More like graphics that will age well, you obviously know jack about technology.  Show me a SINGLE realistic game that's aged well over time.  You can't, because they don't.

    Well I fail to see how it can age well when it already looks disgusting from the beginning. Not really like it will age and look better after a while :p Also I would say that Age of Conan still looks very very good graphic wise and it's a pretty old game.

    -Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox

    -GW2's absolutely pathetic skill system, yaaay 8 abilities!

    -GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.

    -GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs

    * There has been no proof that anything has been dumbed down, and your points all seem to point at how limited your experience and ability was in GW2.  While you could spam (with a few classes), you obviously never played anything other than guardian, warrior, or ranger since playing as most other classes spamming just means you died.  Although you probably just thought that was due to bad luck and not timing...got it.

    Sure is it dumbed down. When you have a combat system announcing what kinds of attacks a monster will do and also the exact range the attack will have with a red line marking the area then it's really dumbed down. How hard can it be to learn by trial and error and actually be careful to look out for the animation of the monster instead of having handholding red lines?

     

    * 8 Abilities is plenty, and means you have to pick and choose wisely to make the build you want.  This is a simple non-issue and really should only lead to deeper gameplay where meaningful choices have to be made.  Yes it could mean it's dumbed down but, again, there's been nothing showing that.  Yes you've seen a TECH DEMO of combat, again you show your knowledge of gaming and technology if you don't realize that it was only there to show you some abilities, not to show you how the finished combat/game will be.

     

    8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.

    * As for weapon tie-ins....well, having to make meaningful choices on the abilities you use and the weapons you use makes perfect sense.  having attacks be based on weapons makes perfect sense.  Show me how you'll do a Ground Pound with a sword and make an indent...right you can't, good point.

    I can agree that the skills by weapons are useful to some extent, however it has to be weapon groups and not a single typ of weapon since otherwise it will make all people to have the one specific weapon that gives your the fotm skill.

     

     

  • nisraknisrak Honolulu, HIPosts: 70Member
    Title of this thread seems a tad dramatic... "Soul-crushing" is a bit over-the-top for a free-to-play online computer game that isn't coming out for another year.
  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member
    Originally posted by elyssaria

     

     

    8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.

     

     

     

    When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.

    Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.

    20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat. 

    I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs. 

    So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.

    And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.

  • wizardanimwizardanim Apple Valley, CAPosts: 278Member
    Originally posted by Zorgo
    Originally posted by elyssaria

     

     

    8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.

     

     

     

    When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.

    Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.

    20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat. 

    I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs. 

    So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.

    And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.

    I will second this.  A game is not defined by how many keys it has.  There is no reason to believe that a game is better or worse because of how many 'keys' there are.  Single mechanic games are just as fun (for their purpose) as multi-mechanic games.  Games with 5 keys can be more fun than games with 10. 

    In my opinion, giving a lot of keys requires you to focus on hitting the right key at the right time.  With a smaller set, as EQ1 had, you worry more about the environment, about what is around you, and what tactics are involved.  It is necessary for us to get back to this.

    People also don't consider clicky items or other hot-bar enabled abilities that may be added.  This shouldn't be something we are worried about.

  • MetrobiusMetrobius cherry valley, CAPosts: 95Member Common
    I really dont understand the debate about horizintal vs. Vertical progression. With the multi class system in EQ next, you will gain abilities over time, and become more powerful as you get better gear. The only thing missing is a level ding every now and then.
    Personally, I like the idea of being able to wonder anywhere in the game from day 1. I like the fact that I wont outlevel my favorite places and feel no incentive to go there any more. I also like the idea of collecting as many classes as I can, as long as balance problems dont make me feel gimped for not using a fotm combination.
    Im not keen on the weapon based abilities, but I neverplayed gw2, so I have no idea how that type of system plays.
  • elyssariaelyssaria LinghemPosts: 39Member
    Originally posted by Zorgo
    Originally posted by elyssaria

     

     

    8 Abilities are NOT plenty and will never be.. It doesn't mean that you do more meaningful choices by having few abilities to select from.. you can have 20 abilities and all are very meaningful choices as long as you can use them all.. not at once but depending on the situations that arise during your play sessions and combats. However I do agree that we have yet to see a finalized version of this, but from what we have seen many have showned concerns about it and it is valid as well until the show something that contradicts this.

     

     

     

    When EQ released the warrior had four things it could do: autoattack, kick, taunt, bash (but only if an ogre or if you had a shield). Casters had 8 slots. You continued to have empty slots - you played up to level 20 to even 30 with FEWER than 8 slots used. When they added 2 extra slots through AA's people complained that this was further 'dumbing' down the game.

    Now, tell me again that you cannot make an indelible game with a reputation for deep coordinated combat with just 8 abilities.

    20 abiliites with meaningful choices sounds a lot like WoW's construction. EQ2 and WoW were the games which formalized this 'everything out where you can use it' combat. 

    I believe it is valid to be concerned EQN may be a overly-simplified system - because there is a lot of evidence from previous games that it certainly could be. But EQ was able to create a phenomenon with a combat system which was very limited in the beginning and much more restrictive than EQNs. 

    So just remember, there is also evidence that it might work.

    And hey - if not; there are literally dozens of mmo's out there that let you have 20+ abilities on your hotbar.

    I do agree to some extent... however that is if buffs are not  included in these 8 abilties and that out of combat abilities are not included in these 8 hotkeys then it might work. Then again the reference we are using is a game from 1997 and it has evolved since people like to have more options when they are playing instead of having a short rotation of 8 different abilities.

  • BiskopBiskop AvalonPosts: 709Member
    Originally posted by baphamet

     

    definitely agree with most of this, had they not called this game everquest, i think there would be a lot less frustration.

    people expect an everquest game to at least resemble an everquest game to some extent. this game resembles other mmo's more than it does EQ, that's the problem.

    its obvious they are making a completely different type of mmo both in mechanics and style, which is great, but it should have never been called everquest.

    clearly they only named it that to get more people to play due to the popularity of the already established IP, that's it.

    but other than that this is just another MMO, its not everquest.

    The frustration comes mainly for people who want EQ1 with better graphics, most others seem to be pretty interested in all the new things this game is trying to accomplish. I really think the old EQ fans are overestimating how many they are and how important they are here; apprently not even SOE want to please that demographic anymore, so why should the rest of us - who like the genre to evolve beyond 1999 mechanics - care about people who refuse to accept that anything not featuring classic, trinity style PvE grind could be considered an MMO?

    As for the game not being EQ, well... that's kinda the point of calling it EQ NEXT. It is not classic Everquest, but still part of the IP, saying that it's not is just silly (it would be like claiming WoW is not part of the Warcraft IP because it's not an RTS) - almost as silly as saying it's "just another MMO" when it's clearly not the typical themepark clone we've been spoon fed for the last 10 years.

    Besides, what's wrong with creating something new from an existing IP? It has been done numerous times before, and sometimes with enormous success as a result.

  • MetrobiusMetrobius cherry valley, CAPosts: 95Member Common
    The fact is, if SOE can creat an immersive world with fun gameplay, people will play the game. All the whiners who seem to feel they are entitled to the game they want will either play it or not.
  • SlampigSlampig Chantilly, VAPosts: 2,376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BearKnight

    I've never seen so many people, myself included, conflicted over a release in quite some time. It isn't the Hype that is the issue either, and that is highly surprising. 

     

    The issue, is that Smed is rolling some of the best aspects of an MMO in with some of the most horrible aspects for an MMO. Together, they form the most frustrating announcements that have been made in the past 10years. Even more frustrating than seeing the first iteration of what we were going to have thrown at us from gamesworkshop in the form of a WoW-Warahmmer 40k (google to see what i'm talking about).

     

     

    So what's so amazing?

    -Sandbox Core Gameplay

    -Destructable Voxel based environemtn tied in with 3D models to handle animations (since voxels suck for animation)

    -Multi-Class mentality

    -Crafting that is trying to copy SWG's amazing system

    -Mentality behind "An MMO isn't just made for one person", something Sandbox's actually encompass.

    -Smed wants to make an EvE-style based fantasy Sandbox title, woo.

    -Exploration being the emphasis over linear achievement. 

     

    So what's so absolutely frustrating that are potentially deal-breakers for such an amazing game??

    -Graphics aimed at Children, think WoW 2.0

    -Major mainstreaming of the Everquest brand, ie: dumbing down...something many didn't think was possible for a Sandbox

    -GW2's horribly bland combat system, with attack telegraphs

    -GW2's absolutely pathetic skill system, yaaay 8 abilities!

    -GW2's Weapon system, ties in with above point about skills.

    -Horizontal progression primarily based on gear (WoW raiding gear-stepping, but without levels?)

    -The same engine that runs Planetside 2

    -Developers that think making the graphics look BETTER, or correcting their mistakes, is a crime (ie: Banning for SweetFX)

     

     

     

    Misc:

    -PvP was mentioned, and then thrown under the bus to not be spoken about until Beta?

    -How does the world handle "Troll" guilds destroying the world? 

    -What's the regeneration timer on destroyed world pieces?

    -What's the limit to how much/deep you can destroy before the game physically stops you from doing any more?

    -How does the Engine handle 100 players in the same area? Does it dynamically-instance players from each other like PS2? (this turned PS2 into a mess btw)

     

     

     

     

     

    At the end of the day, the game is unplayable with their current WoW 2.0 Cartoon art-style, but is one of the more future-oriented core mechanics games we've seen since SWG/DAOC. Truly a frustrating event :(!!! 

    *Sigh* You lost me right there. I am a 41 year old man and I enjoy the graphics of WoW, does that make me a f*****g child? And from what I have seen so far of Next I don't get the entire f*****g child thing...

    That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!

  • VeingloriaVeingloria Morgantown, WVPosts: 50Member

    Frankly, OP, SOE already took a gamble on the sort of game you seem to want. Vanguard had very "adult" graphics, it wasn't dumbed down in any way, and character's "life paths" were complex and required work in multiple areas through a variety of game mechanics. It was, in many ways, exactly the game that the old EQ1 crowd had been asking for and it tanked. It has a minimal player base and receives only life-support level support form SOE, but they do still provide basic maintenance and a skeleton crew that works on fixing bugs.

    I was one of the players who thought I wanted that sort of game, with the sense of challenge that came with the original MMOs like EQ1 and Asheron's Call. But I was wrong. What I wanted was an excited player base, which we used to have. We put up with a lot of bad design and frustrating mechanics in EQ1 because we were exactly the sorts of people who would flock to the new genre. Most of us were pen and paper gamers first and we were excited primarily by the MM part of the game. What the game didn't have, we brought for ourselves: cooperation, intensity, dedication, imagination, creativity.

    EQ:N will succeed or fail because players will or won't bring a willingness to create a game that's fun to play for themselves. It's always been that way. EQ: N is an opportunity for some players to come together in a new kind of world and learn new ways of interacting with it. The ones who enjoy it and stay will be the ones who understand that what the devs give us is just the platform, but we make the game for ourselves. 

  • BoognisheBoognishe Fort Myers, FLPosts: 83Member
    Originally posted by Veingloria

    Frankly, OP, SOE already took a gamble on the sort of game you seem to want. Vanguard had very "adult" graphics, it wasn't dumbed down in any way, and character's "life paths" were complex and required work in multiple areas through a variety of game mechanics. It was, in many ways, exactly the game that the old EQ1 crowd had been asking for and it tanked. It has a minimal player base and receives only life-support level support form SOE, but they do still provide basic maintenance and a skeleton crew that works on fixing bugs.

    I was one of the players who thought I wanted that sort of game, with the sense of challenge that came with the original MMOs like EQ1 and Asheron's Call. But I was wrong. What I wanted was an excited player base, which we used to have. We put up with a lot of bad design and frustrating mechanics in EQ1 because we were exactly the sorts of people who would flock to the new genre. Most of us were pen and paper gamers first and we were excited primarily by the MM part of the game. What the game didn't have, we brought for ourselves: cooperation, intensity, dedication, imagination, creativity.

    EQ:N will succeed or fail because players will or won't bring a willingness to create a game that's fun to play for themselves. It's always been that way. EQ: N is an opportunity for some players to come together in a new kind of world and learn new ways of interacting with it. The ones who enjoy it and stay will be the ones who understand that what the devs give us is just the platform, but we make the game for ourselves. 

     

    Great post.

  • RocknissRockniss Youngstown, OHPosts: 1,034Member
    I will wait for Ps4 version before I complain. I have to chuckle a bit at this though. People are so heavily invested, but for what? The game is 2 years away, in 2 years you may not even like mmorpgs anymore.
  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Common
    Originally posted by Rockniss
     in 2 years you may not even like mmorpgs anymore.

    nooooooo

  • xAPOCxxAPOCx Vineland, NJPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Shadowguy64

    So just cancel the project?

    Hit the delete button on all the art assets?

    Fire the team?

     

    What is it you want them to do?

    What is it i want them to do?  

     

    The three things you mentioned would be a nice start.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.